2014
Business Enterprises of Texas
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
AND COST ANALYSIS REPORT
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................1
Actions Taken as a Result of 2013 Customer Satisfaction
Survey ...............................................................................2
Summary of the 2014 Customer Satisfaction Survey
Results ..............................................................................3
2014 Survey Results .........................................................4
Comment Categories ......................................................17
Agencies Responding .....................................................18
Cost Analysis Report .......................................................20
Page |1
Introduction
This report is submitted pursuant to Rider 26 within the Texas Department of Assistive and
Rehabilitative Services (DARS) bill pattern performance reporting for the Business Enterprises of
Texas (BET) Program for the 2014–15 biennium. Rider 26 reads as follows:
The Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services shall report by October 1
of each year of the biennium the following information to the Legislative Budget
Board and to the Governor:
a. The results of the survey distributed to state host agencies on satisfaction of
operational conditions such as pricing requirements, hours of operations,
menu items, and product lines; and
b. The total cost incurred by each state host agency for the operation of
Business Enterprises of Texas cafeterias, snack bars, and convenience
stores. Reported costs should include the value of the space used,
maintenance costs, utility costs, janitorial costs, and the method of finance
for each cost. An outline of the methodology that was used to determine the
final estimate should also be included in the report.
The report shall be prepared in a format specified by the Legislative Budget
Board and the Governor.
The Survey of Customer Satisfaction was sent to all state agencies in which BET operates a food
service and/or vending services facility. A total of 3,080 individuals from 42 agencies responded to
the survey. This total represents the highest number of responses received in the five years this
survey has been offered and is double the number of responses to the 2013 survey.
Both the survey process and the construction method of the survey and report were improved over
last year’s product. Listed below are a number of the efforts and improvements used for this year’s
product:

Before and during the survey, we placed improved format color posters in BET facilities to
announce the survey dates and provide a “tear off” link sheet to the survey.

We made an effort before and during the survey to encourage human resources managers
with a history of low distribution of survey materials to promote the survey.

We identified and used additional contacts to better promote the availability of the survey to the
widest audience possible.

We expanded the survey to allow respondents to identify their agency if they chose.
Page |2
Actions Taken as a Result of 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey
Significant actions were taken as a result of responses to the 2013 Customer Service Survey.
We distributed survey results to licensed managers who operate facilities. We discussed our
concerns, and managers were asked to adjust practices where possible.
The results of the survey were used as an educational item at the BET manager’s annual training
conference.
The program continued the successful healthy options program titled Better Eating Today, which
offers snack and menu items with:




less than 35 percent fat,
less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fats,
less than 35 percent of total weight from sugar, and
less than 350 mg of sodium.
Program staff and managers began regular meetings with the Statewide Wellness Committee
chairperson and other committee members in order to develop a model to raise awareness and
availability of healthy menu choices in both food service and vending facilities. The development
process is still underway.
Page |3
Summary of the 2014 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
Survey respondents continued to tell BET that they were pleased with our reasonable prices, the
cleanliness of our facilities, and our ability to offer appropriate portions of food at the speed needed
for them to return to work on time. In fact, this year’s respondents scored the program even higher in
these areas than last year. Additionally, respondents rated BET customer service favorably with a
higher satisfaction rate than last year. Over 83 percent of the respondents also were satisfied with the
hours our facilities are open.
Respondents also made clear that BET still has work to do to achieve a wider variety of menu
selections, including more healthy options. Respondents also said BET program facilities need to
increase their focus on maintaining the highest quality of menu offerings while keeping prices
reasonable. BET will also explore ways for facility managers to improve the process for handling
customer concerns. The comments section of the survey has historically been utilized by respondents
to voice specific concerns, along with compliments and requests. All of these comments, requests,
and compliments will be shared with the facility managers so that they can address the areas of
concern.
Page |4
2014 Survey Results
A total of 3,080 individuals from 42 agencies responded to the 2014 Survey of Customer Satisfaction.
The following are the responses to the topics addressed in the survey.
The prices offered in the food service and/or vending facility in this
building are reasonable compared to food service and/or vending
operations in the area.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
15.0%
51.4%
20.6%
10.1%
2.9%
answered question
skipped question
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Response
Count
460
1579
633
310
89
3071
9
The prices offered in the food service and/or vending facility in
this building are reasonable compared to food service and/or
vending operations in the area.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Page |5
The products sold are a good value for the prices charged.
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Response
Percent
Response Count
11.0%
337
46.9%
29.2%
10.2%
2.7%
answered question
skipped question
1439
894
314
82
3066
14
The products sold are a good value for the prices charged.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Page |6
The hours of operation of this facility meet the needs of
the building occupants.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
19.5%
63.9%
10.5%
2.1%
4.0%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
598
1956
323
64
122
3063
17
The hours of operation of this facility meet the needs of the
building occupants.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Page |7
The menu items at this food service and/or vending facility
meet the needs of the building occupants.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
9.6%
53.6%
24.1%
9.3%
3.3%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
285
1585
713
276
97
2956
124
The menu items at this food service and/or vending facility
meet the needs of the building occupants.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Page |8
The menu items at this food service and/or vending
facility provide a good dollar value for building
occupants.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
11.4%
47.4%
27.6%
10.6%
3.0%
answered question
skipped question
Response
Count
337
1400
817
312
90
2956
124
The menu items of this food service and/or vending facility
provide a good dollar value for building occupants.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Page |9
A diverse selection of products is consistently
available.
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Response
Percent
10.1%
47.5%
29.1%
10.6%
2.8%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
297
1402
859
314
82
2954
126
A diverse selection of products is consistently available.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
P a g e | 10
The products this food service and/or vending facility
offers give enough variety to provide adequate alternative
selections, such as healthy item choices.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
8.1%
39.2%
32.2%
16.7%
3.7%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
240
1160
952
495
109
2956
124
The products this food service and/or vending facility offers give
enough variety to provide adequate alternative selections, such as
healthy item choices.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
P a g e | 11
Menu portions are appropriate.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Not Applicable
Response Count
13.8%
64.8%
11.0%
4.3%
6.1%
answered question
skipped question
407
1916
325
126
181
2955
125
Menu portions are appropriate.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
P a g e | 12
Overall, the quality of the products offered is:
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Needs Improving
Unacceptable
10.8%
36.3%
29.0%
20.6%
3.3%
answered question
skipped question
Response
Count
315
1062
848
602
96
2923
157
Overall, the quality of the products offered is:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Adequate
Needs Improving
Needs
Improving
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
P a g e | 13
Overall, the quality of the service offered is:
Answer Options
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Needs Improving
Unacceptable
Response
Percent
27.1%
38.8%
19.2%
12.8%
2.1%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
789
1130
559
373
62
2913
167
Overall, the quality of the service offered is:
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Adequate
Needs Improving
Needs
Improving
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
P a g e | 14
The last time you had a concern in regard to the food
service and/or vending facility, was the process for
resolving the concern:
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Need improving
Unacceptable
17.4%
33.8%
28.0%
17.0%
3.7%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
474
922
763
464
102
2725
355
The last time you had a concern in regard to the food service and/
or vending facility, was the process for resolving the concern:
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Adequate
Need improving
Need improving
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
P a g e | 15
Allows employees to eat quickly and return to work.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
41.4%
31.7%
17.9%
5.9%
3.1%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
1205
925
521
173
90
2914
166
Allows employees to eat quickly and return to work.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
P a g e | 16
Provides employees a clean, safe environment in which to
dine.
Response
Percent
Answer Options
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
48.4%
29.3%
15.1%
5.2%
2.0%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
1407
852
440
152
59
2910
170
Provides employees a clean, safe environment in which to dine.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
P a g e | 17
Comment Categories
Survey respondents were asked for additional suggestions on how BET can improve services. A total
of 1,437 individuals provided comments containing concerns, requests, and compliments.
Summary of Survey Respondent Comments by Category
Category/
Number of
Comments
Food, 544
comments
Sanitation, 39
comments
HealthOriented, 221
comments
Vending, 181
comments
Price, 265
comments
Service, 133
comments
General, 308
comments
Compliments,
59 comments
Hours of
Operation, 53
comments
Response Items
Quality, Variety,
Flavor, Cooking
Method,
Appearance
Gloves, Hairnets,
General
Cleanliness
Request For
“Healthy” Options,
More Baked, Larger
Selection
Vegetables
Variety, Low Stock,
Inoperable
Machines, More
Machines/Locations
Too High,
Adequate, Good
Value
Lack Of, Rudeness
Or Indifference,
Manager And Staff
Great, Excellent
Training, Credit
Card Charges,
Consistent Pricing,
Recycling
Service, Manager,
Staff, Cleanliness,
Communication
Skills
Variety, Diversity,
Change Of Menu
Items
% of Overall
Comments
Received
%–Negative
Comments
Received
%–Positive
Comments
Received
% of
Comments
Containing
Requests
Quality, Variety,
Flavor
38.4
9.7
2.9
13.1
General
Cleanliness
2.8
30.7
0
0
Request For
“Healthy” Options
15.6
2.7
2.3
66.1
Variety, Low
Stock
12.8
8.8
2.2
9.5
Too High
18.7
15.1
.03
7.9
Rudeness Or
Indifference
9.4
16.5
.08
9.0
Credit Card
Charges,
Consistent
Pricing
21.7
16.9
6.8
4.9
Manager, Staff
4.2
0
100
0
More Variety,
Healthy Options
3.7
0
1.8
7.5
Item with Most
Comments
Received
P a g e | 18
Agencies Responding
Please Tell Us Which State Agency You Work For.
Agencies
Response Percent
Response Count
Board of Dental Examiners
Board of Nursing
Child Protective Services
Chiropractic Examiners
Commission on Environmental Quality
Commission on Fire Protection
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Department of Aging and Disability Services
Department of Agriculture
Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services
Department of Family and Protective Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety
Division for Rehabilitation Services
Department of State Health Services
Disability Determination Services
Division for Blind Services
Emergency Communications
Employees Retirement System of Texas
Board of Examiners of Psychologists
General Land Office
Health and Human Services Commission
Historical Commission
Housing and Community Affairs
Legislative Council
Legislative Budget Board
State Library and Archives Commission
Office of the Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Child Support
Physical/Occupational Therapy Board
Public Utility Commission
Railroad Commission
Secretary of State
State Board of Public Accountancy
State Office of Administrative Hearings
Sunset Advisory Commission
Texas Education Agency
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
16.5%
0.0%
0.5%
8.3%
0.5%
8.3%
2.7%
3.6%
11.1%
0.4%
12.2%
4.5%
0.2%
0.4%
1.5%
0.1%
0.2%
2.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
7.1%
0.6%
0.1%
1.2%
4.7%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.4%
2
3
5
2
464
1
13
232
13
232
77
102
311
11
341
125
5
11
43
2
7
66
0
4
14
0
16
198
18
2
33
131
65
1
0
6
40
P a g e | 19
Please Tell Us Which State Agency You Work For.
Agencies
Response Percent
Response Count
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
5.9%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0
0
29
166
2
3
3
5
107
Texas Facilities Commission
Texas Lottery Commission
Texas Workforce Commission
TxDOT, Riverside, Austin
TxDOT, Camp Hubbard, Austin
Veterans Commission
Veterans Land Board
Workers Compensation
Did not disclose location
answered question
skipped question
How did you find out about this survey?
Answer Options
Response
Percent
91.2%
Email from your agency.
6.3%
Poster in food service facility.
Other (please specify)
2.5%
answered question
skipped question
Response Count
2630
181
72
2883
197
2804
276
P a g e | 20
Cost Analysis Report
An inquiry was submitted to all state host agencies in which BET operates a cafeteria, snack bar,
and/or convenience store. Of the 16 host agencies surveyed, 15 responded. There was some
inconsistency in methods utilized by those reporting. A listing of host agencies surveyed and a
summary of all costs reported or known are listed below.
FY14 DBS
Food Service
Location/Type
Address
Annual
Value of
Space Used
2014 *
Estimated
Maintenance
Costs
Estimated
Utility
Costs
Estimated
Janitorial
Costs
Brown-Heatly
Bldg. Café
4900 N.
Lamar
Blvd.,
Austin, TX
4,061 sq. ft.
$63,189.16
$10,680.43
$11,127.14
$3,695.51
Department of
State Health
Services Café
1100 West
49th St.,
Austin, TX
2,691 sq. ft.
$41,871.96
$5,469.04
$9,061.84
$319.36
Elias Ramirez
State Office
Bldg. Café
5425 Polk
St..,
Houston, TX
3,992 sq. ft.
$62,115.52
$5,389.20
$5,708.56
$2,395.20
James Rudder
Bldg. Snack
Bar
1019
Brazos St.,
Austin, TX
1,092 sq. ft.
$16,991.52
$2,107.56
$2,598.96
$928.20
John Winters
Bldg. Café/C
store
701 W. 51st
St., Austin,
TX
6,645 sq. ft.
$103,396.20
$12,226.80
$21,596.96
$5,781.15
Park 35
Complex Café
TCEQ
12100 N. IH
35
Austin, TX
3,501 sq. ft.
$54,475,56
$10,072.92
$7,149.66
$1,655.34
Stephen F.
Austin Bldg.
Café
1700 N.
Congress
Ave.,
Austin, TX
3,878 sq. ft.
$60,341,68
$4,498.48
$9,695.00
$2,171.68
William B.
Travis Bldg.
Café
1701 N.
Congress
Ave.,
Austin, TX
$4,445.42
$5,782.98
$2.399.74
3,934 sq. ft.
$61,213.04
Method
of
Finance
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
P a g e | 21
FY14 DBS
Food Service
Location/Type
Address
Annual
Value of
Space Used
2014 *
Estimated
Maintenance
Costs
Estimated
Utility
Costs
Estimated
Janitorial
Costs
Clements Bldg.
Café
300 W 15th
St., Austin,
TX
3,239 sq. ft.
$50,398,84
$3,336.17
$6,478.00
$1,943.40
Hobby Bldg.
Café
333
Guadalupe
St., Austin,
TX
2,266 sq. ft.
$35,258.96
$3,874.86
$5,075.84
$1,404.92
TxDOT Café
4615 NW
Loop 410,
San
Antonio, TX
1,672 sq. ft.
$26,016.32
$623.26
$2,653.53
$623.26
TxDOT Café
200
Riverside
Dr.
Austin, TX
4,354 sq. ft.
$67,748.24
No
response
after
multiple
requests
San Antonio
State Hospital
6711 S.
New
Braunfels
Ave., TX
3,210 sq. ft.
$49,947.60
$8,123.00
No
response
after
multiple
requests
$6,163.71
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
$5,503.00
State
General
Revenue
Department of
Public Safety
3,889 sq. ft.
$60,512.84
Lease
includes
maintenance
Disability
Determination
Services
6101 E.
Oltorf St.,
Austin TX
3,850 sq. ft.
$59,906.00
Included in
lease cost
$6,377.47
$4,035.68.
Attorney
General Child
Support
Division
5500 E.
Oltorf St.
Austin, TX
3,000 sq. ft.
$46,680.00
Services
inclusive in
property lease
$5,327.00
NA
$70,847.14
$104,796.65
NA
$860,063.44
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
No
response
after
multiple
requests
5805 N.
Lamar Blvd,
Austin, TX
Totals
Lease
includes
utilities
Method
of
Finance
NA
$32,856.44
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
SSA,
100%
federal
funds
State
General
Revenue
and Fed.
Funding
NA
* Annual value of space used may include utility, maintenance, and janitorial costs.
*In order to establish consistency in reporting, the estimated value of space was based on average square footage
lease costs of $15.56 per square foot for space leased by state agencies, as reported by the Texas Facilities
Commission Master Facilities Plan Report 2014.
P a g e | 22
Cost Analysis Survey—2014
State Property Locations Surveyed
Sent To
San Antonio Supported Living Center and Hospital
Texas Dept. of Transportation—San Antonio
Texas Dept. of Transportation—Austin
Disability Determination Services—Austin
Department of Public Safety—Austin
Office of the Attorney General-Child Support—Austin
Elias Ramirez State Office Building—Houston
Department of State Health Services—Austin
Winters Building Café and Convenience Store—Austin
Commission on Environmental Quality—Austin
Travis Building—Austin
Hobby Building—Austin
Clements Building—Austin
Brown-Heatly Building—Austin
Rudder Building—Austin
Stephen F. Austin Building—Austin
Responded
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes